The Great Protestant Fallacy

ExpandCollapse

New Member

It is likely, I should call it the Great American Protestant Fallacy, but I am not as in touch with Protestants from other countries. Anyhow, this great fallacy is the insistance on individual interpretation. This is a false teaching. Interpretation should never be done in isolation of the Church Militant. The scriptures were not given for that purpose and in no place do you find that interpretation was done on an individual level in the historical accounts in Scripture. They always involved the rest of the church, hence the first Jerusalem council. Individual study and understanding is important and to be commended, but interpretation should always be informed and tempered by the church.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

It is likely, I should call it the Great American Protestant Fallacy, but I am not as in touch with Protestants from other countries. Anyhow, this great fallacy is the insistance on individual interpretation. This is a false teaching. Interpretation should never be done in isolation of the Church Militant. The scriptures were not given for that purpose and in no place do you find that interpretation was done on an individual level in the historical accounts in Scripture. They always involved the rest of the church, hence the first Jerusalem council. Individual study and understanding is important and to be commended, but interpretation should always be informed and tempered by the church.

Click to expand...

Gee, maybe the Holy Spirit made a mistake putting the NT Scriptures into the common tongue of the people? I am being facetious.

Instead of starting a thread negatively as this, why don't we discuss on of the Solas of the Protesteant Reformation: Sola Scriptura. For your post in nothing more than an attack on it. What say ye?

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

It is likely, I should call it the Great American Protestant Fallacy, but I am not as in touch with Protestants from other countries. Anyhow, this great fallacy is the insistance on individual interpretation. This is a false teaching. Interpretation should never be done in isolation of the Church Militant. The scriptures were not given for that purpose and in no place do you find that interpretation was done on an individual level in the historical accounts in Scripture. They always involved the rest of the church, hence the first Jerusalem council. Individual study and understanding is important and to be commended, but interpretation should always be informed and tempered by the church.

Click to expand...

Yet we read of the Jews at Berea being commended because they studied the scriptures (the Old Testament at that time, of course) to see if what Paul and Silas preached was actually true. Those Bereans weren't Christians already, so they would not have been members of any church. No, they studied the scriptures. Think also of what John wrote in John 20.30-31:

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.​

Not "these are written, that ye may call upon the church to interpret them to you."

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

It is likely, I should call it the Great American Protestant Fallacy, but I am not as in touch with Protestants from other countries. Anyhow, this great fallacy is the insistance on individual interpretation. This is a false teaching. Interpretation should never be done in isolation of the Church Militant. The scriptures were not given for that purpose and in no place do you find that interpretation was done on an individual level in the historical accounts in Scripture. They always involved the rest of the church, hence the first Jerusalem council. Individual study and understanding is important and to be commended, but interpretation should always be informed and tempered by the church.

Click to expand...

As usual, you are far away from the Bible Truth.

1 Cor 1429 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teachethyou of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Yet we read of the Jews at Berea being commended because they studied the scriptures (the Old Testament at that time, of course) to see if what Paul and Silas preached was actually true. Those Bereans weren't Christians already, so they would not have been members of any church. No, they studied the scriptures.

Click to expand...

On that basis then, given that the Bereans studied only the OT, we should all adhere to the doctrine of "sola-Old-Testament" as being "sufficient for salvation". OK, then, I'm off home to rip out those last 27 books from my Bible, including all those quotes from that pesky person Jesus.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

It is likely, I should call it the Great American Protestant Fallacy, but I am not as in touch with Protestants from other countries. Anyhow, this great fallacy is the insistance on individual interpretation. This is a false teaching. Interpretation should never be done in isolation of the Church Militant. The scriptures were not given for that purpose and in no place do you find that interpretation was done on an individual level in the historical accounts in Scripture. They always involved the rest of the church, hence the first Jerusalem council. Individual study and understanding is important and to be commended, but interpretation should always be informed and tempered by the church.

Click to expand...

In other words you are espousing your belief that Church tradition is the final authority over the Scripture. No thanks...

I perfer to let the Scriptures speak for themselves and hold the traditions of men under the final authority of God's Word.

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

On that basis then, given that the Bereans studied only the OT, we should all adhere to the doctrine of "sola-Old-Testament" as being "sufficient for salvation". OK, then, I'm off home to rip out those last 27 books from my Bible, including all those quotes from that pesky person Jesus.

Click to expand...

Matt, that is not what I meant at all. I just meant that at the time the events in Acts were happening, the New Testament had not been written, so when the Bereans searched "the Scriptures", it could only have been the Old Testament.

ExpandCollapse

<b>Moderator</b>

Moderator

It is likely, I should call it the Great American Protestant Fallacy, but I am not as in touch with Protestants from other countries. Anyhow, this great fallacy is the insistance on individual interpretation. This is a false teaching. Interpretation should never be done in isolation of the Church Militant. ,

Click to expand...

Luther would choke on this statement. I thought you are a Lutheran pastor? What's up? Are you switching to Catholicism? Luther stood up for sola scriptura, almost invented the term, and yet you are attacking its very foundation. Do you preach this in your church? And what do you define as "Church Militant"? Catholic or Lutheran?

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Matt, in answer to your question, the church militant is synonymous with the church on earth. The church victorious would be those who have already been called home.

In actuality, my position originates from some of the greatest defenders of the 3 Sola's of the reformation namely Luther, Melanchthon and Chemntiz. Just because you do not believe interpretation should be done in isolation does not mean that you are elevating Tradition over Scripture or attacking Sola Scriptura. Nor am I suggesting the hierachical interpretive structure of the Roman Catholics is correct. Let me put it this way, interpretation is to be done by the whole of the priesthood of believers and not in isolation.

The Bereans are a prime example of what I have stated, they as a group went to the scriptures in light of what had been brought to them by the church aka, the priesthood of believers.

1 Cor 1429 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teachethyou of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 14:29 "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said." - the prophecy is judged by the priesthood of believers, the church, not by individuals.

The quote from 1 John 2 is a prime reason people should proof-text if we were to take 1 John 2:27 in isolation one would believe that the Christian has no need for teaching. However, that is not the case instead this verse is found in a warning about the coming of the antichrists and is part of John's encouragement to the people to trust what has already been given to them.

It is for the reason that we should mutually encourage and admonish each other that interpretation should not occur in isolation.

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

1 Corinthians 14:29 "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said." - the prophecy is judged by the priesthood of believers, the church, not by individuals.

The quote from 1 John 2 is a prime reason people should proof-text if we were to take 1 John 2:27 in isolation one would believe that the Christian has no need for teaching. However, that is not the case instead this verse is found in a warning about the coming of the antichrists and is part of John's encouragement to the people to trust what has already been given to them.

It is for the reason that we should mutually encourage and admonish each other that interpretation should not occur in isolation.

Click to expand...

1) Are you talking about the "Church" by meaning the rule of Majority? or the Clergy system which is condemned by Jesus as the Nicolaitanes ( Re 2:6 and 15) ? Do you vote among the church members for the interpretation of Bible? or are you trying to be a dictating mono-pastor for the interpretation of the Bible?
If you are on the first, you don't have to oppose to the individual interpretation very much. If your claim is based on the latter, you revealed the greedy monopoly interpretation by the RCC alone.

2) 1 John 2:27 has been the warning against the dictatorship of Bible interpretation as you claimed.
Doctrines of Nicolaitanes prohibited the interpretations of the Bible, and that's how the so-called clergies could keep the people in darkness and slavery, without informing the Truth to the people. Clergies like you are scared that the people might know about the Bible better than you do.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

This is a false teaching. Interpretation should never be done in isolation of the Church Militant. The scriptures were not given for that purpose and in no place do you find that interpretation was done on an individual level in the historical accounts in Scripture. They always involved the rest of the church, hence the first Jerusalem council.

Click to expand...

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,
:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,
:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Shooting that down was pretty easy, Chemnitz

Click to expand...

Cutter, I hope you are not suggesting that you or anyone else can speak with the authority or understand with the depth of clarity conferred on the Apostle Paul by none other than Jesus Christ Himself. I think you need to go back to the drawing board and think this over some more.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Cutter, I hope you are not suggesting that you or anyone else can speak with the authority or understand with the depth of clarity conferred on the Apostle Paul by none other than Jesus Christ Himself. I think you need to go back to the drawing board and think this over some more.

Click to expand...

I think you need to go back and reread the OP! He said something never happened and I showed him the scripture disproved his assertion. Did I or not? Did I say that was my training or revelation? Get a grip, buddy and make sure you understand a post before you make such an outlandish claim! Really! :tonofbricks:

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

I think you need to go back and reread the OP! He said something never happened and I showed him the scripture disproved his assertion. Did I or not? Did I say that was my training or revelation? Get a grip, buddy and make sure you understand a post before you make such an outlandish claim! Really! :tonofbricks:

Click to expand...

OK Cutter, I have reread the OP and it is not contradicted by Galatians 1:9-19, which nowhere suggests interpretation of scripture. You may be able to prove Chemnitz wrong but not with this scripture.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

The Gospel is the Word of God.
The Word of God is scripture.
The scripture is the revelation of God.

The Gospel Paul preached, according to Paul, was not after men, nor was it received of man.
The Word of God came to Paul on the road to Damascus from the Lord Himself, not man.
The scripture Paul wrote he received from God and not man.
Does the Holy Spirit speak to any of you guys today, or are you either deaf to Him or underestimate His ability to guide you "into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and He will shew you things to come."
Or maybe you think God's too busy to speak to you or sup with you and you don't bother to challenge God when He says, "Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not."

Oh yeah, Consulting so and so is easier, probably faster, too.

Is the scripture sufficient for the believer?
Is it enough?
Will it get me to heaven?

The way some believers are today I'm not sure they believe the Word of God is the final authority.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Matt, that is not what I meant at all. I just meant that at the time the events in Acts were happening, the New Testament had not been written, so when the Bereans searched "the Scriptures", it could only have been the Old Testament.

Click to expand...

Yet that is the logical conclusion of your statement.

Chemnitz, thanks for your earlier clarification, but I'm not sure that gets us out of the hole. It doesn't for example address Eliyahu's question: whose interpretation do we go with - someone who is ordained with a degree in theology, or Joe Pew-Fodder who's been a Christian for 3 weeks? It also doesn't address the related issue of absolutely contradictory interpretations: how do you judge between the Calvinist and the Arminian, the cessationist and charismatic, the dispensationalist and the covenantist etc? Who gets to judge? etc etc

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

It is clearly logical to you, Matt, but I'm afraid not to me. Here are some possible meanings of your objection that occur to me. Are any of them correct, or do you mean something I haven't thought of?

1. Maybe you think that the passage about the Bereans searching the scriptures cannot apply to the subject under discussion, because they did not have the New Testament.

2. Perhaps you thought that because I said that the Bereans only had the Old Testament, I was saying that we too should only use the Old Testament. (If so, I must assure that I did not mean that).

3. Could it be that you believe the Bereans already had at least part of the New Testament?

I stress again that all I meant was that, for people living at the time of those Bereans, the only Scriptures they could have searched would have been the Old Testament. The verse I quoted was Acts 17.11:

11 These were more fair–minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.​

If we want to know what "these things" were, we only need to look back at Acts 17.1-3:

1 ¶ Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ."​

Paul reasoned with the Jews from the Old Testament Scriptures, the New having not yet been written, concerning the person, the death and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I have no desire at all to be "nit-picking". I'm just trying to understand what you meant.

Incidentally, I should add that I agree with what you wrote in reply to Chemnitz.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Chemnitz, thanks for your earlier clarification, but I'm not sure that gets us out of the hole. It doesn't for example address Eliyahu's question: whose interpretation do we go with - someone who is ordained with a degree in theology, or Joe Pew-Fodder who's been a Christian for 3 weeks? It also doesn't address the related issue of absolutely contradictory interpretations: how do you judge between the Calvinist and the Arminian, the cessationist and charismatic, the dispensationalist and the covenantist etc? Who gets to judge? etc etc

Click to expand...

That is always the question. Ideally, we should be able to gather together and study the scripture and come to the right understanding. It is the goal we should be working towards as we strive to overcome our sinful natures which cling to false teachings.

1) Are you talking about the "Church" by meaning the rule of Majority? or the Clergy system which is condemned by Jesus as the Nicolaitanes ( Re 2:6 and 15) ? Do you vote among the church members for the interpretation of Bible? or are you trying to be a dictating mono-pastor for the interpretation of the Bible?
If you are on the first, you don't have to oppose to the individual interpretation very much. If your claim is based on the latter, you revealed the greedy monopoly interpretation by the RCC alone.

2) 1 John 2:27 has been the warning against the dictatorship of Bible interpretation as you claimed.
Doctrines of Nicolaitanes prohibited the interpretations of the Bible, and that's how the so-called clergies could keep the people in darkness and slavery, without informing the Truth to the people. Clergies like you are scared that the people might know about the Bible better than you do.

Click to expand...

I am scared, am I? If I were scared, I would not encourage people to read the Bible, but I am not scared so I do encourage people to read the Bible.

There is a difference between arriving at a consensus and a person going off an relying solely on their own interpretation, a thing which many on this board encourage when they tell people to go off and read for themselves and consult no one else. Majority rule is a poor way to determine doctrine as truth is not something to be voted into being and the top-down system of the RCC ignores the priesthood of believers. The ideal is a consensus arrived at in the clear truth of Scripture.

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,
:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Shooting that down was pretty easy, Chemnitz

Click to expand...

Cutter, as Zenas already pointed out, you are not even in the ballpark. Did you honestly think that I would not have taken into account such an obvious response. An account of the special revelation of Christ to Paul hardly counts as a defense of individual interpretation. This account in Galatians is a defense of the Gospel message he preached against the teachings of those who would return to works righteousness.

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!